Wagner et al suggest that if and when we are intent on making changes, then professionals are wise to adhere to some general criteria to make sure the change process is effective (p. 53):
If we pursue a change in our approach to teaching, we should do so with the perception that making the change is a step toward our becoming the very best teacher we can become for all of our students. Wagner et al stress the last item – implicating ourselves – because their research has revealed that many people are willing to make a commitment that really implicates everyone else (e.g., “I’m committed to accountability” might translate into – “as long as everyone else goes first”) (p. 53). In other words, you get to set personal improvement goals only for yourself, not for someone else. Likewise, if we differentiate, we do so for the students in our care, not someone else’s. We teach the students we have, not the ones we wish we had more of.
Tomlinson (1999) points out that as you begin to differentiate, you may want to start small, grow slowly (but keep growing), and reflect often on attempts at differentiation (pp. 96-99). Tomlinson also cautions that “the unhappy truth in many schools is that some of your colleagues will be resentful if you do something innovative or expend more energy than the norm in your work” (p. 105). Tomlinson offers encouragement though: “A happier truth is that in these same places, there are always a few soulmates who are energized by their work, catalyzed by someone else’s ideas, and ready to take the risk of growth. Find one or two of the latter group and work together” (p. 105).
If you can already say your personal teaching philosophy (PTF) aligns with a differentiated one, that you already know that the challenge to differentiate is a continual one, then it is also one you welcome because you believe it represents a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to maximally impact students in ways that will increase the quality of their lifelong learning experience. If you don’t currently embrace differentiated instruction, or do so with a variety of disclaimers and provisos, then this course presents a number of items for you to consider further. Extending Wagner et al.’s (2006) analysis of the current need for reinvention of public education, any teacher who sorts students in the classroom is a microcosm of the antiquated system that was highly effective at sorting students – between 40-100 years ago. Whether we embrace a differentiated approach or reject it, all are challenged with the same questions:
Just how far are you willing to go for students to experience success?
What kind of differentiation would be going too far?
How much is too different?
Is it possible to be too student-centered?
Regardless of the assumptions of others or of the previous generation(s) of teachers, there is an expectancy of stewardship about education that cannot be dismissed. As McTighe and Tomlinson (2006) point out,
In an effectively differentiated classroom, a teacher adheres to a philosophy that each learner is sent to school by someone who has to trust that the teacher will realize the worth of the child and be guided by a sense of stewardship of potential each time the child enters the classroom door. In other words, the teacher accepts the premise that if he or she doesn’t ensure that the day works for the child, it may be a lost day. (p. 44)